Think whatever version we release we must meet the most common version for project starting when release is around, as of today - and even in a year - it will not be 21 but 17 AFAIK so 17 looks natural if we intend to have a 4.0.0 < 2 years....else 21 is very relevant. Anything else goes legacy on what is already there and does not help much to decide IMHO.
Romain Manni-Bucau @rmannibucau <https://twitter.com/rmannibucau> | Blog <https://rmannibucau.metawerx.net/> | Old Blog <http://rmannibucau.wordpress.com> | Github <https://github.com/rmannibucau> | LinkedIn <https://www.linkedin.com/in/rmannibucau> | Book <https://www.packtpub.com/application-development/java-ee-8-high-performance> Le mer. 31 mai 2023 à 14:38, Tamás Cservenák <ta...@cservenak.net> a écrit : > Good question! :D > > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 2:34 PM Delany <delany.middle...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > Excuse my ignorance but what do customer requirements have to do with the > > build tool's required JDK? > > Delany > > > > > > On Wed, 31 May 2023 at 13:57, Elliotte Rusty Harold <elh...@ibiblio.org> > > wrote: > > > > > On Wed, May 31, 2023 at 8:30 AM Guillaume Nodet <gno...@apache.org> > > wrote: > > > > > > > I think with those improvements, requiring JDK 17 for master should > be > > > > doable. Any concerns of suggestions ? > > > > > > Hard no from me. JDK 8 is still very much in use, and is my day-to-day > > > VM. I switch to 11 when I have to, and I don't anticipate switching to > > > 17 for years unless I decide to write another book. > > > > > > When I left Google and GCP about a year ago, we still had customer > > > requirements for quite old versions. From the public docs it looks > > > like they still support Java 8 and sometimes Java 7. > > > > > > I know of multiple companies where the migration to Java 11 is still > > > in progress. Some companies are also sticking to Java 8 for likely the > > > remainder of my career. JPMS in Java 9 caused a lot of problems for > > > weakly supported libraries and many devs can't or won't upgrade past > > > Java 8 for that reason. > > > > > > Slow and steady wins the race. Java 8 is a perfectly fine VM, and > > > Maven really doesn't need anything more right now. I think we'll get > > > to Java 11 eventually. but that's still a few years down the road and > > > there's a lot of cleanup work to be done first. Just today I sent a PR > > > to replace some utility methods we haven't needed since Java *1.4*. > > > When there's some improvement we really can't make without updating to > > > Java 11 is when we should consider switching. So far I don't see any > > > critical need for it though. > > > > > > -- > > > Elliotte Rusty Harold > > > elh...@ibiblio.org > > > > > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > > > To unsubscribe, e-mail: dev-unsubscr...@maven.apache.org > > > For additional commands, e-mail: dev-h...@maven.apache.org > > > > > > > > >
